Category: Politics

Champions of the almost entirely party-line vote in the U.S. Senate to erase US$1.1 billion in already approved funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting called their action a refusal to subsidize liberal media.

“Public broadcasting has long been overtaken by partisan activists,” said U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, insisting there is no need for government to fund what he regards as biased media. “If you want to watch the left-wing propaganda, turn on MSNBC,” Cruz said.

Accusing the media of liberal bias has been a consistent conservative complaint since the civil rights era, when white Southerners insisted news outlets were slanting their stories against segregation. During his presidential campaign in 1964, U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona complained that the media was against him, an accusation that has been repeated by every Republican presidential candidate since.

But those charges of bias rarely survive empirical scrutiny.

As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on journalism that is independent of both market pressure and partisan talking points.

That independence in the United States – enshrined in the press freedom clause of the First Amendment – gives journalists the ability to hold government accountable, expose abuses of power and thereby support democracy.

Trusting independence

Ad Fontes Media, a self-described “public benefit company” whose mission is to rate media for credibility and bias, have placed the reporting of “PBS NewsHour” under 10 points left of the ideological center. They label it as both “reliable” and based in “analysis/fact.” “Fox and Friends,” by contrast, the popular morning show on Fox News, is nearly 20 points to the right. The scale starts at zero and runs 42 points to the left to measure progressive bias and 42 points to the right to measure conservative bias. Ratings are provided by three-person panels comprising left-, right- and center-leaning reviewers.

A 2020 peer-reviewed study in Science Advances that tracked more than 6,000 political reporters likewise found “no evidence of liberal media bias” in the stories they chose to cover, even though most journalists are more left-leaning than the rest of the population.

A similar 2016 study published in Public Opinion Quarterly said that media are more similar than dissimilar and, excepting political scandals, “major
news organizations present topics in a largely nonpartisan manner,
casting neither Democrats nor Republicans in a particularly favorable
or unfavorable light.”

Surveys show public media’s audiences do not see it as biased. A national poll of likely voters released July 14, 2025, found that 53% of respondents trust public media to report news “fully, accurately and fairly,” while only 35% extend that trust to “the media in general.” A majority also opposed eliminating federal support.

Contrast these numbers with attitudes about public broadcasters such as MTVA in Hungary or the TVP in Poland, where the state controls most content. Protests in Budapest October 2024 drew thousands demanding an end to “propaganda.” Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism reports that TVP is the least trusted news outlet in the country.

While critics sometimes conflate American public broadcasting with state-run outlets, the structures are very different.

Safeguards for editorial freedom

In state-run media systems, a government agency hires editors, dictates coverage and provides full funding from the treasury. Public officials determine – or make up – what is newsworthy. Individual media operations survive only so long as the party in power is happy.

Public broadcasting in the U.S. works in almost exactly the opposite way: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private nonprofit with a statutory “firewall” that forbids political interference.

More than 70% of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s federal appropriation for 2025 of US$1.1 billion flows through to roughly 1,500 independently governed local stations, most of which are NPR or PBS affiliates but some of which are unaffiliated community broadcasters. CPB headquarters retains only about 5% of that federal funding.

Stations survive by combining this modest federal grant money with listener donations, underwriting and foundation support. That creates a diversified revenue mix that further safeguards their editorial freedom.

And while stations share content, each also has latitude when it comes to programming and news coverage, especially at the local level.

As a public-private partnership, individual communities mostly own the public broadcasting system and its affiliate stations. Congress allocates funds, while community nonprofits, university boards, state authorities or other local license holders actually own and run the stations. Individual monthly donors are often called “members” and sometimes have voting rights in station-governance matters. Membership contributions make up the largest share of revenue for most stations, providing another safeguard for editorial independence.

Broadly shared civic commons

And then there are public media’s critical benefits to democracy itself.

A 2021 report from the European Broadcasting Union links public broadcasting with higher voter turnout, better factual knowledge and lower susceptibility to extremist rhetoric.

Experts warn that even small cuts will exacerbate an already pernicious problem with political disinformation in the U.S., as citizens lose access to free information that fosters media literacy and encourages trust across demographics.

In many ways, public media remains the last broadly shared civic commons. It is both commercial-free and independently edited.

Another study, by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School in 2022, affirmed that “countries with independent and well-funded public broadcasting systems also consistently have stronger democracies.”

The study highlighted how public media works to bridge divides and foster understanding across polarized groups. Unlike commercial media, where the profit motive often creates incentives to emphasize conflict and sensationalism, public media generally seeks to provide balanced perspectives that encourage dialogue and mutual respect. Reports are often longer and more in-depth than those by other news outlets.

Such attention to nuance provides a critical counterweight to the fragmented, often hyperpartisan news bubbles that pervade cable news and social media. And this skillful, more balanced treatment helps to ameliorate political polarization and misinformation.

In all, public media’s unique structure and mission make democracy healthier in the U.S. and across the world. Public media prioritizes education and civic enlightenment. It gives citizens important tools for navigating complex issues to make informed decisions – whether those decisions are about whom to vote for or about public policy itself. Maintaining and strengthening public broadcasting preserves media diversity and advances important principles of self-government.

Congress’ cuts to public broadcasting will diminish the range and volume of the free press and the independent reporting it provides. Ronald Reagan once described a free press as vital for the United States to succeed in its “noble experiment in self-government.” From that perspective, more independent reporting – not less – will prove the best remedy for any worry about partisan spin.

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

President Donald Trump’s nomination of his former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, has been mired in controversy.

On June 24, 2025, Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice attorney who worked with Bove, released an extensive, 27-page whistleblower report. Reuveni claimed that Bove, as the Trump administration’s acting deputy attorney general, said “that it might become necessary to tell a court ‘fuck you’” and ignore court orders related to the administration’s immigration policies. Bove’s acting role ended on March 6 when he resumed his current position of principal associate deputy attorney general.

When asked about this statement at his June 25 Senate confirmation hearing, Bove said, “I don’t recall.”

And on July 15, 80 former federal and state judges signed a letter opposing Bove’s nomination. The letter argued that “Mr. Bove’s egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position.”

A day later, more than 900 former Department of Justice attorneys submitted their own letter opposing Bove’s confirmation. The attorneys argued that “Few actions could undermine the rule of law more than a senior executive branch official flouting another branch’s authority. But that is exactly what Mr. Bove allegedly did through his involvement in DOJ’s defiance of court orders.”

On July 17, Democrats walked out of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote, in protest of the refusal by Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, to allow further investigation and debate on the nomination. Republicans on the committee then unanimously voted to move the nomination forward for a full Senate vote.

As a scholar of the courts, I know that most federal court appointments are not as controversial as Bove’s nomination. But highly contentious nominations do arise from time to time.

Here’s how three controversial nominations turned out – and how Bove’s nomination is different in a crucial way.

Robert Bork

Bork is the only federal court nominee whose name became a verb.

“Borking” is “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification,” according to Merriam-Webster.

This refers to Republican President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 appointment of Bork to the Supreme Court.

Reagan called Bork “one of the finest judges in America’s history.” Democrats viewed Bork, a federal appeals court judge, as an ideologically extreme conservative, with their opposition based largely on his extensive scholarly work and opinions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In opposing the Bork nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts took the Senate floor and gave a fiery speech: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Ultimately, Bork’s nomination failed by a 58-42 vote in the Senate, with 52 Democrats and six Republicans rejecting the nomination.

Ronnie White

In 1997, Democratic President Bill Clinton nominated White to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. White was the first Black judge on the Missouri Supreme Court.

Republican Sen. John Ashcroft, from White’s home state of Missouri, led the fight against the nomination. Ashcroft alleged that White’s confirmation would “push the law in a pro-criminal direction.” Ashcroft based this claim on White’s comparatively liberal record in death penalty cases as a judge on the Missouri Supreme Court.

However, there was limited evidence to support this assertion. This led some to believe that Ashcroft’s attack on the nomination was motivated by stereotypes that African Americans, like White, are soft on crime.

Even Clinton implied that race may be a factor in the attacks on White: “By voting down the first African-American judge to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court, the Republicans have deprived both the judiciary and the people of Missouri of an excellent, fair, and impartial Federal judge.”

White’s nomination was defeated in the Senate by a 54-45 party-line vote. In 2014, White was renominated to the same judgeship by President Barack Obama and confirmed by largely party-line 53-44 vote, garnering the support of a single Republican, Susan Collins of Maine.

Miguel Estrada

Republican President George W. Bush nominated Estrada to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2001.

Estrada, who had earned a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, faced deep opposition from Senate Democrats, who believed he was a conservative ideologue. They also worried that, if confirmed, he would later be appointed to the Supreme Court.

However, unlike Bork – who had an extensive paper trail as an academic and judge – Estrada’s written record was very thin.

Democrats sought to use his confirmation hearing to probe his beliefs. But they didn’t get very far, as Estrada dodged many of the senators’ questions, including ones about Supreme Court cases he disagreed with and judges he admired.

Democrats were particularly troubled by allegations that Estrada, when he was screening candidates for Justice Anthony Kennedy, disqualified applicants for Supreme Court clerkships based on their ideology.

According to one attorney: “Miguel told me his job was to prevent liberal clerks from being hired. He told me he was screening out liberals because a liberal clerk had influenced Justice Kennedy to side with the majority and write a pro-gay-rights decision in a case known as Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado statute that discriminated against gays and lesbians.”

When asked about this at his confirmation hearing, Estrada initially denied it but later backpedaled. Estrada said, “There is a set of circumstances in which I would consider ideology if I think that the person has some extreme view that he would not be willing to set aside in service to Justice Kennedy.”

Unlike the Bork nomination, Democrats didn’t have the numbers to vote Estrada’s nomination down. Instead, they successfully filibustered the nomination, knowing that Republicans couldn’t muster the required 60 votes to end the filibuster. This marked the first time in Senate history that a court of appeals nomination was filibustered. Estrada would never serve as a judge.

Bove stands out

As the examples of Bork, Estrada and White make clear, contentious nominations to the federal courts often involve ideological concerns.

This is also true for Bove, who is opposed in part because of the perception that he is a conservative ideologue.

But the main concerns about Bove are related to a belief that he is a Trump loyalist who shows little respect for the rule of law or the judicial branch.

This makes Bove stand out among contentious federal court nominations.

Paul M. Collins Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Ben Jacobs on what Deja Foxx’s loss means for Democrats | The Conversation

lead image

​Politics

The unlikely alliance of the populist left and right has strengthened over the Jeffrey Epstein controversy.

Leading the charge for Congress to vote on publicizing Epstein-related records are Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). The odd couple — a libertarian from rural Kentucky and a progressive from Silicon Valley — is piecing together Republican and Democratic support for the House to take an up-or-down vote on releasing the so-called Epstein files. If successful, their efforts would further complicate President Donald Trump’s ability to move on from the spiraling scandal that has angered his political base.

“I do believe that there are issues that populists on the right and left can collaborate on,” Khanna said in an interview. “In this case, it’s about going after the corruption in our government. Rich and powerful men shouldn’t have impunity from accountability. And that’s something that both people on the left and right are sick of.”

Discharge petitions, which allow any member of the House to force legislation to the floor if a majority of members agree, are usually a long shot. As of Friday afternoon, Massie, a frequent White House foil, and Khanna had convinced 10 Republicans and five Democrats to get on board as cosponsors. It’s not the first time they’ve teamed up: Massie and Khanna collaborated on legislation aiming to limit U.S. involvement in the wars in Yemen and Iran.

Their newest gambit would pay off if the entire Democratic caucus signs on — which Khanna guaranteed in a recent video clip. Democrats have been hungry to capitalize on Trump’s Epstein problem, given the president’s longstanding ties to the accused sex trafficker that were illuminated in a Wall Street Journal story this week. The paper focused on a letter Trump reportedly wrote to Epstein for his 50th birthday. Trump denies he wrote the note, and POLITICO has not independently verified it. The president has never been accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein.

Nevertheless, the political fallout has been widespread as it weds the divergent factions of Congress.

From conservative firebrand Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) to famed progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the cosponsors on Massie’s measure represent an eclectic mix of lawmakers who rarely agree on anything — or even speak to each other cordially. The list yokes one of the furthest left members of Congress, Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib, with Trump loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). And one Republican in a battleground district, Rep. Tom Barrett from Michigan, has also signed onto the push.

It’s not the first time that the populist left and right have converged: A handful of leaders on both sides have found agreement recently on wars in the Middle East, U.S. involvement in Israel, antitrust policies, artificial intelligence and the unaffordability of housing.

To that end, Khanna said he’s “exchanged a few texts” with MAGA godfather Steve Bannon, who has expressed support for a special counsel to examine the Epstein case. Their correspondence was “in the context of trying to stop the regime-change war in Iran,” Khanna said.

Asked for comment, Bannon listed Khanna as one of a group of figures on the populist left and right who have found common ground on “neo-Brandeisian antitrust.”

On X, Massie is keeping a live whip count of cosponsors for his proposal to release the Epstein files and encouraging his 1.3 million followers to ask their representatives if they support the idea. When Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Thursday the Justice Department will move to release grand jury transcripts — a decision seen as an attempt to appease the MAGA base — Massie declared: “Folks, Keep the pressure on, it’s working. But we want all the files.”

Should it come to pass, the resolution would be symbolic — Congress doesn’t have the power to force the Justice Department to release any information. But under procedural rules, action on the floor can’t take place until September, meaning that Trump’s Epstein problem could linger in Congress for several more weeks.

Khanna said he has a “very friendly” relationship with Massie. The idea for the discharge petition came about after Khanna introduced an amendment to release the Epstein files, and Massie texted him to propose they draft a bill on the topic.

“We text back and forth all the time. I will often see him on the House floor, pick up the phone and call him,” he said. “Obviously, we come from different ideological perspectives, but there are areas where we have agreement in making sure that we’re preventing wars of choice overseas and transparency.”

A spokesperson for Massie declined to comment. Earlier this week, Massie said in an interview that the pressure will intensify on House Republicans over the upcoming recess.

“They probably want to let the steam out, but this will build momentum over August,” Massie said. “They can’t sweep it under the rug.”

It’s not the first time Massie, often an iconoclast in his party, has found strange bedfellows in Democrats. He and other conservatives joined forces with libertarian-minded and anti-interventionist lawmakers on digital privacy and war powers measures. And just last month, he teamed up with Khanna on a measure to reign in Trump’s ability to use military force in the Iran-Israel conflict.

“It is very on brand for Thomas Massie to stick with his position, even under pressure,” said Marisa McNee, a Democratic strategist from Massie’s northern Kentucky district. “The thing that bugs his party about him is that he’s sort of unwavering once he has a position on something.”

Massie, who is up for re-election next year, has easily survived primary challenges. But he’s become a top target for Trump’s allies angered by his choice to break party lines and vote against the megabill.

Meanwhile, Democrats are angling to exploit their opposing party’s wedge over Epstein. As Democratic lawmakers filtered into a closed-door caucus meeting Thursday, one chanted “Epstein, Epstein, Epstein,” and Democrats frequently heckled their GOP counterparts as the House debated clawbacks of public media and foreign aid overnight.

House Democrats reveled this week in the pressure they and Massie applied to the GOP, underscored by a group of Rules Committee Republicans huddling with Speaker Mike Johnson for hours Thursday in search of political cover.

Republicans advanced their own non-binding resolution calling for the release of a limited scope of Epstein-related documents, while voting down a Democratic amendment to advance Massie’s bipartisan legislation.

“We’ll determine what happens with all that. There’s a lot developing,” Johnson told reporters, after declining to commit to put the GOP resolution to a full House vote.

The Epstein controversy is the latest example of Massie creating a major headache for his fellow Republicans, following his opposition to the megabill. Just a few weeks ago, Trump and Massie actually appeared headed to a sort of political truce. But it was short-lived.

House Republicans said Trump appeared to blow up the detente he and Massie struck during a late-night call to advance the struggling megabill on the House floor last month.

Shortly after, in a move that shocked some Republicans on Capitol HIll, Trump allies poured millions into a PAC attacking Massie, three House Republicans said this week as the Epstein chaos swirled. Trump allies say they wanted Massie to vote for the megabill final passage itself, not just the procedural move to advance it.

Massie going after Trump on Epstein “probably has the virtue of being able to poke Trump in the eye and appeal to important aspects of the base,” said former Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a Republican. “It makes sense he’s engaging.”

Nicholas Wu, Meredith Lee Hill and Mia McCarthy contributed reporting.

​Politics

PAWLEYS ISLAND, South Carolina — Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear drew a standing ovation from Georgetown County Democrats Thursday night, after he shook hands and grinned for photos. California Gov. Gavin Newsom packed standing-room-only crowds into a two-day rural county tour of the state last week. California Rep. Ro Khanna kicked off his multi-day swing Friday to promote his populist message to Black voters.

The 2028 Democratic primary calendar isn’t set yet, but presidential hopefuls are already making bets that South Carolina will hold a powerful role in the nomination process — even if it doesn’t keep its number-one spot. While Iowa and New Hampshire are drawing some big names, no other state has seen as much action as this small Southern state.

And while these top Democrats credited their appearances to local invitations — and in the case of Beshear, his son’s baseball tournament in Charleston — the 2028 implications are clear. Democratic hopefuls road-tested stump speeches and previewed their lines of attack against Republicans and President Donald Trump, all with an eye toward introducing themselves to a set of influential voters.

“I’m out there trying to be a common ground, common sense, get-things-done type of messenger for this Democratic Party,” Beshear told elected officials and party officials in Charleston Thursday morning. “Because I believe that with what we’re seeing coming out of Washington, D.C., the cruelty and the incompetence, that the path forward is right there in front of us.”

Christy Waddil, a 67-year-old Democratic voter who waited to shake Beshear’s hand Thursday night, said she was “excited” to meet all these potential contenders. But it’s a lot of responsibility to be the first state in the presidential primary calendar, she said: “We have our work cut out for us now.”

In June, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly spoke at an anti-gun event in Charleston to mark the grim anniversary of the Emanuel AME shooting. In May, Govs. Wes Moore of Maryland and Tim Walz of Minnesota headlined a pair of state party events to rub elbows with Rep. Jim Clyburn, the longtime South Carolina kingmaker whose nod helped anoint Joe Biden as the party’s nominee in 2020.

“It’s not a surprise,” said Clyburn when asked about the state’s revolving door of 2028 hopefuls nearly three years before the actual presidential primary. “Why argue with success? If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”

South Carolina Democrats know their grip on the top spot is tenuous, with traditional early states like Iowa and New Hampshire eager to reclaim their lead-off position, and others —like North Carolina and Georgia — seeking to emerge as new states to consider. And it comes as there’s been a major reshuffling on a powerful panel at the Democratic National Committee that has huge sway over the presidential nominating process.

“None of what those supposed candidates are doing right now is going to have any bearing on what the Rules and Bylaws Committee ultimately does for the calendar,” said Maria Cardona, a longtime member of the powerful panel. “That may or may not include all of the states that are in the early calendar now.”

Democrats haven’t won the state in a general election since 1976, and President Donald Trump won it by 18 points last year.

It’s led more competitive neighbors to wonder whether they should get top billing instead.

“[National Democrats] have a lot of mobility to get power back at the federal level by investing early in North Carolina. And I think a lot of people will hear that message loud and clear, especially after we just got our asses kicked,”said state party chair Anderson Clayton, who is interested in usurping its neighbor to the south and angling for one of the open at-large slots on the RBC. “The future of the state of the Democratic Party also runs right through North Carolina too.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker will deliver the keynote address at North Carolina’s state party unity dinner on July 26, and state party leaders are in talks with Sens. Kelly of Arizona and Cory Booker of New Jersey about visits to the state later this year.

But moving the order of primary states is easier said than done. North Carolina is hamstrung by state law from moving its date, and Democrats would need the GOP-controlled legislature to agree to any changes. DNC members have also emphasized smaller states to allow lesser-known candidates to build followings.

“The most powerful force in the universe is inertia, so South Carolina is probably the favorite to stay just because of that,” said an incoming member of the committee granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. “Every state has a chance to be first, but I do think we have to come into this with a degree of realism.”

The DNC is attempting to remain neutral.

“The DNC is committed to running a fair, transparent, and rigorous process for the 2028 primary calendar. All states will have an opportunity to participate,” Deputy Communications Director Abhi Rahman said in a statement.

Iowa Democrats are also gearing up on a bid to restore their caucuses to their traditional spot as the nation’s first presidential contest. Michigan replaced Iowa as the Midwestern early state in 2024.

Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart said she planned to have “tough and direct conversations” with the party in a statement, even as the DNC removed Iowa’s only representative, Scott Brennan, from the Rules and Bylaws Committee this year.

Already, potential 2028 candidates have traveled there, including former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who held a town hall in Cedar Rapids in May. Walz stopped by the Hawkeye State in March, and former Japan Ambassador Rahm Emanuel and freshman Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego are both slated to visit the state in the coming months.

New Hampshire Democrats also openly clashed with top DNC officials last cycle — and plan to stick with their state law making it first primary in the nation. Pritzker went to an influential state party dinner there in April.

“The potential candidates on the Democratic side and, to some extent, the Republican side are coming through New Hampshire,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said in a brief interview.

The positioning at the national party over early states is already underway.

Party insiders are voting for the remaining open seats on the panel after DNC Chair Ken Martin named members to the governing body in recent weeks. Cardona said the goal of the committee is to ensure the strongest and most electable candidate emerges from what is expected to be a crowded field. Talks will begin on the next presidential primary calendar later this year, but will ramp up after the midterms.

South Carolina’s ascension was aimed at recognizing South Carolina’s significant Black electorate, long considered the backbone of the Democratic Party.

That’s partly why Khanna is there, he said in an interview on why he is focusing on reaching out to Black voters.

“I believe that’s critical for all the people who want to lead the Democratic Party, in whatever form, and to me it’s encouraging that people are going down to South Carolina” to reach them.

Beshear, too, expressed support for South Carolina’s representation, telling reporters that Democrats “need to make sure that the South is represented in the primary calendar” because “for too long, the investments haven’t been made in places like Kentucky and in places like South Carolina.”

In defense of remaining in the early window, South Carolina Democrats are playing up the state’s diverse electorate and inexpensive media markets that could allow for the best presidential candidates — not just the best fundraisers — to emerge in a wide open presidential cycle in 2028.

“The Democratic primary for president is not based on the state’s competitiveness in a general election,” said Parmley. “This is the same bullshit that loses us presidential elections, and we only play in eight competitive states.”

Lisa Kashinsky and Kelly Garrity contributed to this report.

​Politics

Sen. Eric Schmitt on being a White House whisperer and Senate budget reformer | The Conversation

lead image

​Politics

Seeking to expand Florida’s role in federal immigration enforcement, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in May 2025 submitted the state’s Immigration Enforcement Operations Plan to the Trump administration.

The plan, endorsed by President Donald Trump, says all of Florida’s roughly 47,000 law enforcement officers have received, or soon will receive, training to act as immigration officers. It’s part of an effort to, as the plan notes, “maintain state-led border security operations in the absence of federal support.”

The DeSantis plan includes a proposal to deputize Florida’s nine National Guard Judge Advocate General’s Corps officers to serve as immigration judges. JAG officers are attorneys who serve as legal advisers, prosecutors, defense counsel and military judges in a wide range of matters specific to the armed forces. That includes courts-martial and civil matters involving the military.

DeSantis has said the move is necessary to create a fast-track deportation system at Florida’s new immigration detention facility in the Everglades, Alligator Alcatraz.

He has dismissed due process concerns – such as a lack of training and independence – from legal experts, pointing to the backlog in immigration courts. Immigration judges in Florida’s immigration courts have one of the largest backlogs in the country, with over half a million cases.

Congress establishes immigration policy

The Constitution grants Congress, not the president or state governments, the power to establish immigration laws.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, Congress created a clear process for immigration removal cases.

In general, a U.S. noncitizen may face removal from the country based on violations to the immigration laws. Those range from unauthorized entry to committing or being convicted of certain crimes.

Congress designated the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an agency within the Department of Justice that houses the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, as the body exclusively responsible for deciding immigration removal cases. The office also details the authority and standards for how immigration judges conduct deportation hearings.

Immigration judges undergo rigorous vetting and training. And their decisions are subject to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the administrative appellate body for decisions made by immigration judges.

The McCarran-Walter Act also contains several provisions that subject most immigration court decisions such as removal or asylum to judicial review in federal courts. That can happen on direct appeal or as part of habeas corpus petitions that challenge the legality of detention or removal.

The system is far from perfect. But Congress designed it to ensure legal expertise and due process guarantees.

As an immigration scholar, I believe that allowing Florida JAG officers to serve as immigration judges bypasses this framework that is set in law, and violates the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

JAG officers, including those in Florida’s National Guard, are not governed by the McCarran-Walter Act. They are military lawyers in an entirely separate system, overseen by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which defines the role of military judges. The code retains a unique military character that is substantially different from the judicial appellate system that governs immigration administrative rulings.

Simply put, neither Trump nor DeSantis can create an entirely new system of immigration judges outside of the one already established by Congress.

Federal agencies cannot deputize JAGs

A current immigration provision, known as the 287(g) program, authorizes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to collaborate with local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws.

But this provision only authorizes deputizing local law enforcement to assist “in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention” of immigrants – not the arbitration of deportation cases.

In the nearly three decades since 287(g) was enacted, no state or local officials – let alone military officers – have been permitted to act as immigration judges.

DeSantis’ plan seeks to convert Florida’s JAG officers from state to federal officials to function as immigration judges. Trump’s approval of this plan would also exceed the scope of his statutory authority.

Federal statutes allow the president to federalize the National Guard in limited instances: during times of war or national emergency.

But neither DeSantis’ rhetoric nor Trump’s framing of undocumented immigration as an “invasion” meet these legal thresholds.

JAGs cannot engage in domestic law enforcement

Even if Florida’s National Guard were federalized, JAG officers still could not legally serve as immigration judges.

The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878, restricts the use of federal military personal in civilian law enforcement. It reflects a longstanding American principle: The military should not police civilians.

Immigration enforcement – including deciding whether someone is deported – is fundamentally a civilian enforcement function.

The only narrow exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act’s restrictions require a clear statutory basis, such as Trump invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, a law that would allow the president to rely on the military for domestic enforcement to quell a rebellion or widespread violence.

Due process concerns

The DeSantis plan also compromises constitutionally guaranteed rights to a fair process for immigrants facing removal.

Immigration law is notoriously complex. Even experienced immigration lawyers struggle to keep up with its constant changes.

JAG officers, trained primarily in military law, would face immense challenges interpreting and applying immigration statutes. That’s especially true with only weeks of preparation, as DeSantis proposes.

But due process isn’t only about knowledge of legal technicalities. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process rights to all persons on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status.

For decades, courts have interpreted these protections to include fair hearings before qualified immigration judges – and, in most instances, judicial review.

By circumventing established procedures, DeSantis’ plan risks creating a system where expedited deportations come at the expense of accuracy and constitutional rights.

Raquel Aldana does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Mike returned home to Philadelphia after a 15-year prison sentence and suffered an emotional breakdown.

“I just couldn’t stop crying … I don’t know. It was the anxiety. It was just a lot,” he said. “I was under a lot of pressure and it just came crashing down.”

Mike, who was in his late 40s when we spoke, told me about his childhood filled with abuse, his first arrest at age 14, and the over 20 years of his life that he spent behind bars.

As a registered nurse and nurse scientist who studies how incarceration affects mental health, I know Mike’s experience after release from prison is not uncommon. Studies show that Black men who have experienced incarceration have higher rates of PTSD, depression and psychological distress compared with Black men who have never been incarcerated.

Working in psychiatric hospitals in Philadelphia, I met many patients in crisis who had been incarcerated at some point in their lives. As a part of my doctoral research, funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research, I interviewed 29 formerly incarcerated Black men to understand how incarceration has affected their mental health.

My peer-reviewed findings were published in the journal Social Science & Medicine. All quotes shared here use pseudonyms to protect the men’s privacy.

Trauma of incarceration

Mass incarceration in the U.S. has serious health consequences for individuals, families and communities. In Philadelphia alone, over 20,000 people return home from incarceration each year.

While incarceration rates are declining in Philadelphia, the needs of those coming home remain significant.

Many formerly incarcerated men described experiencing or witnessing violence, including being beaten by correctional officers and witnessing close friends get assaulted or killed.

“You know you are not regular because you come from a traumatic situation, right?” said Thomas, 44, who spent 18 years incarcerated.

The participants expressed that racism was common, especially while incarcerated in facilities located in the rural central and northern regions of Pennsylvania.

“I ain’t gonna sugar coat it – Black people going up into them white people mountains, they call you [n-word] all day long and you basically there to accept it,” Antonio told me.

Incarceration was especially difficult for those who were held for months pretrial without ever being convicted and those incarcerated during COVID restrictions who spent more than 23 hours a day in their cells.

‘Even though I’m free, I ain’t free’

Participants described life on parole or probation, or in transitional housing, as another form of confinement.

Ken, 56, has been out of prison for over a decade but said, “I’m still locked up, even though I’m free, I ain’t free. You just get a whole new set of rules and regulations.”

Men described significant anxiety related to community supervision requirements, including difficulty sleeping the night before a probation appointment.

Participants also described distress caused by “no association” restrictions. These are common parole and probation requirements that prohibit people under supervision from interacting with others who have criminal records, are also under supervision or are currently incarcerated. Violating this requirement can lead to a technical violation and reincarceration.

While these requirements are meant to reduce the risk of reoffending, they often isolate people from supportive relationships and resources, including housing and employment.

“[There are] a lot of smart brothers in there. And it hurts my heart. And that’s where the depression coming in too,” said Reese, who spent six years incarcerated. “I can’t contact them in jail. … That’s just how it is in the system.”

Philadelphia has the highest rate of community supervision – including probation and parole – among the largest U.S. cities, according to a 2019 analysis by The Philadelphia Inquirer.

At that time, the Inquirer reports, 1 in 23 adults in Philadelphia were under community supervision – and 1 in 14 Black adults in Philadelphia.

The men I interviewed said they felt like parts of them never left jail or prison, while others felt that they brought prison or jail home with them.

Tyrese, 34, said he stays home as often as he can.

“I’ve been out of the joint for seven years now and feel like I’m still institutionalized, I guess,” he said. “I know people that don’t even come outside,” referring to other formerly incarcerated men.

Others had dreams that they were back in a cell, or at home still wearing jail clothing. Long after release, many described constant hypervigilance and anxiety.

“I can be walking to the bus station and there be people walking around me, I’m constantly watching them,” said Anthony, who was first incarcerated at age 18 and served 16 years. “I’m watching every movement they’re doing. That’s a habit I had from jail.”

Finding work

People who have been incarcerated often struggle to find employment after release, as many employers are unwilling to hire a person with a criminal record.

This leaves about 35% of formerly incarcerated Black men unemployed.

At the time of our interview, Tay, 31, was working part-time in carpentry. “Because I had felonies on my record a lot of places won’t hire me,” he said. “And a couple of places that I was working with, they ended up firing me once they did the background check.”

These frustrations can easily spill over into family life.

Mark, 30, also works part-time and said he found himself frequently becoming agitated and snapping at his kids, other family members and his girlfriend. “I can’t get the job I want or the job that I need to do what I need to do for my family and I’ll be frustrated,” he shared.

Participants struggled with having to depend on others for basic needs upon release. Kenny, who is now self-employed as a caterer, recalled his experience a few years earlier. “I was crying. I was a grown man, almost 40 years old, and my mother had to buy me underwear, socks,” he said.

The importance of fatherhood

Despite their many hardships, some of the men spoke with joy about reconnecting with their children.

“I think the most positive thing that happened since I’ve been out of prison is I got custody of my sons,” said Ken, a father of two. “Them kids saved me.”

Like many of the other participants with children, however, he was frustrated about being unable to provide for them and worried about repeating harmful cycles.

“You want to do good, but it makes you think bad stuff when you don’t have the right resources,” he continued. “You don’t want [your kids] to do the same things you did.”

Others struggled to bond with their children after years of separation.

John, 29, explained, “The bonding is kind of awkward, because you wasn’t there, especially during the pandemic when there was no visits allowed.”

Returning to disadvantaged neighborhoods

Most people released from incarceration return to neighborhoods with high rates of poverty, violence and other disadvantages.

Shawn, who lives in pubic housing, showed me abandoned buildings and boarded storefronts in his neighborhood and described how the environment made rebuilding his life harder.

For many participants, returning to divested communities brought stress. They experienced frequent exposure to substance use, violence and negative police encounters, and they had limited access to basic resources and job opportunities needed to support recovery and stability.

“This is my real life. It’s not fake. It’s not no, ‘Well, why did he go back and do this or that?’” he said. “I live in an underserved, impoverished, danger zone – period.”

Moving forward

The experiences these men shared with me demonstrate how traumatic incarceration is, even many years after release.

Supporting the mental health of formerly incarcerated Black men requires trauma-informed services, such as culturally responsive counseling, peer support and care that acknowledges the lasting effects of incarceration.

It also means helping them build or rebuild their financial resources, reconnect with their children and loved ones, and supporting the broader communities they return to through investment in housing, employment and accessible health and social services.

Helena Addison received funding from National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number F31NR020434, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration and American Nurses Association Minority Fellowship Program, the University of Pennsylvania’s Presidential PhD Fellowship, and Jonas Philanthropies to support this study and/or her PhD training. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, or any other funding organizations or institutions. The views expressed in written training materials or publications and by speakers and moderators do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Department and Human Services; nor does mention of trade names, commercial practices, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

President Donald Trump has said the “big, beautiful bill” he signed into law on July 4, 2025, will stimulate the economy and foster financial security.

But a close look at the legislation reveals a different story, particularly for low-income people and racial and ethnic minorities.

As a legal scholar who studies how taxes increase the gap in wealth and income between Black and white Americans, I believe the law’s provisions make existing wealth inequalities worse through broad tax cuts that disproportionately favor wealthy families while forcing its costs on low- and middle-income Americans.

The widening chasm

The U.S. racial wealth gap is stark. White families’ median wealth between 2019 and 2022 grew to more than $250,000 higher than Black families’ median wealth.

This disparity is the result of decades of discriminatory policies in housing, banking, health care, taxes, education and employment.

The new legislation will widen these chasms through its permanent extension of individual tax cuts in Trump’s 2017 tax reform package. Americans have eight years of experience with those changes and how they hurt low-income families.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, for example, predicted that low-income taxpayers would gain US$70 a year from the 2017 tax cuts. But that figure did not include the results of eliminating the individual mandate that encouraged uninsured people to get health insurance through the federal marketplace. That insurance was heavily subsidized by the federal government.

The Republican majority in Congress predicted that the loss of the mandate would decrease federal spending on health care subsidies. That decrease cost low-income taxpayers over $4,000 per person in lost subsidies.

The Congressional Budget Office examined the net effect of the 2025 bill by combining the tax changes with cuts to programs like Medicaid and food assistance. It found that the bill will reduce poor families’ ability to obtain food and health care.

Wealth-building for whom?

Perhaps the most revealing part of the bill is how it turns ideas for helping low-income families on their head. They are touted as helping the poor – but they help the wealthy instead.

A much publicized feature of the bill is the creation of “Trump Accounts,” a pilot program providing a one-time $1,000 government contribution to a tax-advantaged investment account for children born between 2025 and 2028.

While framed as a “baby bonus” to build wealth, the program’s structure is deeply flawed and regressive. Although the first $1,000 into the accounts comes from the federal government, the real tax benefits go to wealthy families who can avoid paying taxes by contributing up to $5,000 per year to their children’s accounts.

As analysts from the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive economic and social policy think tank, have pointed out, this design primarily benefits affluent families who already have the disposable income to save and can take full advantage of the tax benefits.

For low-income families struggling with daily expenses, making additional contributions is not a realistic option. These accounts do not address the fundamental barrier to saving for low-income families – a lack of income – and are more likely to widen the wealth gap than to close it.

This regressive approach – regressive because the wealthy get larger benefits – to wealth-building is mirrored in the bill’s renewal and enhancement of the New Markets Tax Credit program. Although extended by the “big, beautiful bill” to drive investment into low-income communities by offering capital gains tax breaks to investors, the program subsidizes luxury real estate projects that do little to benefit existing low-income residents and accelerate gentrification and displacement. Studies show that there is very little increase in salaries or education in areas with these benefits.

A harsh new rule

The child tax credit is another part of the bill that purports to help the poor and working classes while, in fact, giving the wealthy more money.

A family can earn up to $400,000 and still get the full $2,200 tax credit per child, which reduces their tax liability dollar for dollar. In contrast, a family making $31,500 or less cannot receive a tax credit of more than $1,750 per child. And approximately 17 million children – disproportionately Black and Latino – will not receive anything at all.

More significantly, the law tightens eligibility by requiring not only the child but also the taxpayer claiming the credit to have a Social Security number. This requirement will strip the credit from approximately 4.5 million U.S. citizen children in mixed-status families – families where some people are citizens, legal residents and people living in the country without legal permission – where parents may file taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number but lack a Social Security number, according to an April 2025 study.

A burden on the poor

Perhaps most striking is the law’s “pay-fors” – the provisions designed to offset the cost of the tax cuts.

The legislation makes significant changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, lifelines for millions of low-income families.

The law imposes new monthly “community engagement” requirements, a form of work requirement, for able-bodied adults to maintain Medicaid coverage. The majority of such adults enrolled in Medicaid already work. And many people who do not work are caring full time for young children or are too disabled to work. The law also requires states to conduct eligibility redeterminations twice a year.

Redeterminations and work requirements have historically led to eligible people losing coverage. For SNAP, the bill expands work requirements to some Americans who are up to 64 years old and the parents of older children and revises benefit calculations in ways that will reduce benefits.

By funding tax cuts for the wealthy while making cuts to essential services for the poor, the bill codifies a transfer of resources up the economic ladder.

In my view, the “big, beautiful bill” represents a missed opportunity to leverage fiscal policy to address the American wealth and income gap. Instead of investing in programs to lift up low- and middle-income Americans, the bill emphasizes a regressive approach that will further enrich the wealthy and deepen existing inequalities.

Beverly Moran does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation